■^^; 


•^x^xt-«e-'r^ 


'*:.       VAk 


1 


..-A. 


Tlie 

rroi>erly                         \ 

lEPEiiT 

croiEciTiiro 

LyKtiii^jllj  A.  A  .                                          1 

BARTON     £ 

SQUARE,    SALEM. 

DEPOSITED 


—  IN    •IlIK  — 


LIBRARY 

—  "1      Tllh   — 

ESSEX    INSTITUTE. 


¥ 


REMARKS 


THE  REV.  DR.  WORCESTER'S 


LETTER    TO    MR.    CHANNING, 


ON    THE 

"REVIEW  OF  AMERICAN   UNITARUNISM 
IN    A   LATE    PANOPLIST. 


«»  / 


BY 

WILLIAM  E.  CHANNING, 

Minister  of  the  Church  of  Christ  ia  Federal  Street, . 


BOSTON  :  ♦ 

VRINXJD  AJJD  PUBUSHBD   BT  WELIS  AXD  tltlT. 

1815.- 


Su 


t 


REMARKS,  ^'c. 


By  the  advice  of  friends,  whose  judgment  I  respect,  I 
have  resolved  to  offer  to  the  publick  some  remarks  on 
the  letter  of  D».  Worcester,  in  reply  to  mine  addressed 
to  Mr,  Thacher.  They  will  be  few  ia  number,  and  as 
free  as  possible  from  personalities.  When  I  under- 
stood tliat  my  letter  was  to  be  answered  by  Dr.  Wor- 
cester, I  felt  and  expressed  great  satisfaction.  I 
regarded  Dr.  Worcester  as  a  man  of  candour,  mode- 
ration, and  liberal  feelings.  I  had  reason  to  suppose, 
that  as  a  minister,  he  would  understand  the  feelings 
of  his  brethren,  whose  uprightness  had  been  so  wan- 
tonly assailed  in  the  Panoplist  Review,  and  whose 
influence  and  usefulness  that  publication  was  de- 
signed to  destroy.  I  trusted,  that  whilst  he  would 
openly  express  disapprobation  of  some  of  my  opin- 
ions, he  would  still  appear  in  the  honourable  cha- 
racter of  a  peacemaker  among  christians.  But  I 
have  been  disappointed.  His  letter,  though  milder 
in  language,  breathes  too  much  of  the  spirit  of  the 
Review.  I  feel,  however,  no  disposition  to  retali- 
ate. His  letter,  I  will  hope,  is  not  to  be  considered 
as  an  expression  of  his  general  temper  ;  and  al- 
though it  is  too  obviously  designed  to  drive  both  me 


46 

and  my  brethieii  from  the  cliurcli  and  tlie  ministry, 
yet,  in  obedience  to  that  Master,  who  has  forbidden 
me  to  render  evil  for  evil,  I  have  no  desire  to  rob 
Dr.  Worcester  of  his  character  as  a  christian,  or  a 
christian  teacher. 

My  letter  to  Mr.  Thacher  is  considered  by  Dr. 
Worcester  as  bitter  and  severe  ;  bnt  called,  as  I  was, 
to  repel  the  charge  of  immorality  brought  against 
men,  whose  virtue  and  piety  I  know  and  honour, 
and  to  whom  I  am  bound  by  ties  of  friendship  and 
christian  affection,  I  felt  it  a  solemn  duty  to  ex- 
press what  I  deemed  a  virtuous  indignation.  1  la- 
boured however  to  temper  displeasure  with  christian 
moderation  ;  and,  on  finishing  my  letter,  my  fear  was, 
not  that  I  liad  expressed  an  improper  warmth,  but 
that  I  should  be  considered  as  wanting  sensibility 
to  the  injuries  done  to  some  of  the  best  men  in  this 
community.  I  know,  however,  the  many  weaknesses 
and  imperfections  of  my  nature.  I  may  have  erred, 
for  the  provocation  w  as  great ;  and  I  sincerely  re- 
peat tlie  declaration  with  which  I  closed  my  letter, 
that  for  every  departure  from  the  spirit  of  the  gospel, 
I  implore  the  divine  forgiveness.  On  the  present 
occasion  I  am  called  to  defend  myself,  rather  than  my 
brethren,  and  I  am  therefore  at  liberty  to  suppress 
the  feelings  which  were  awakened  by  many  parts 
of  Dr.  Worcester's  letter. 

There  is  one  particular  in  which  I  ahi  indebted 
to  Dr.  Worcester,  and  I  hasten  to  express  my  obli- 
gation. He  has  pointed  out  an  inaccuracy  in  the. 
language  which  I  have  employed  to  express   the 


charges  contained  in  the  Review.  I  have  said, 
that  the  Review  ••  asserts  that  the  rainisters  of  this 
town  and  its  vicinity,  and  the  great  body  of  liberal 
christians,  are  Unitarians,  in  Mr.  Belsham's  sense  of 
the  word."  It  is  true,  that  this  passage  may  be  un- 
derstood as  charging  the  Review  with  asserting,  that 
all  the  ministers  of  Boston  of  all  denominations  are 
Unitarians  of  Mr.  Belsham's  school.  1  ousht  to 
have  said,  that  the  Review  maintains — that  the  great 
body  of  liberal  ministers  in  Boston  and  its  vicinity, 
and  of  liberal  christians,  are  Unitarians,  in  Mr.  Bel- 
sham's  sense  of  the  word.  I  was  probably  led  into 
this  inacuracy,  by  the  manner  in  which  the  phrase 
*^  Boston  clergy"  is  used  in  the  Review  ;  a  phrase 
as  broad  as  the  ^^  ministers  of  Boston,"  and  which 
is  employed  by  the  Reviewer  to  designate  the  liberal 
ministers  alone.  I  wrote  too  with  a  strong  convic- 
tion, which  is  still  in  no  degree  impaired,  that  the  Re- 
viewer intended  to  fix  on  liberal  ministers  and  chris- 
tians, considered  as  a  class,  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Bel- 
sham.  I  therefore  made  the  statement  with  too  little 
precision.  I  thank  Dr.  Worcester  for  detecting  the 
inaccuracy,  and  if  it  has  made  a  false  impression  on 
my  readers,  (which  I  think  can  very  rarely  have  oc- 
curred,) I  desire  to  express  my  sorrow  for  the  wrong 
I  have  unintentionally  done  to  the  Reviewer. 

This  correction  however  affects  very  slightly  the 
jnerits  of  the  question.  I  still  maintain,  what  I  intend- 
ed to  maintain  in  my  letter,  that  the  Review  was 
designed  to  represent  the  great  body  of  liberal  min- 
isters in  this  town  and  vicinity,  and  the  liberal  party 


in  general,  as  Unitarians,  in  Mr.  Belsliam's  sense  of 
the  word  ;  and  that  it  charges  these  ministers  and  the 
leading  members   of  tlie  liberal  party  with  artifice, 
hypocrisy,  and  base  concealment.     This   statement 
of  the  charges  contained  in  the   Review,  Dr.  AVor- 
cester  pronounces  to  be  unauthorized  and  incorrect. 
There  is  a  short  way,  and  it  is  the  only  way,  of  set- 
tling this  dispute.     I   beg  every  reader  to  examine 
the  Review  for  himself,  and  to  ask,  from  the  impres- 
sion made  on  his  own  mind,  what  is  its  obvious  im- 
port and  design.     I  offered  but  a  few  out  of  several 
passages  which  support  the   charges  I  have  made. 
Let  every  man  read  for  himself ;  I  ask  no  more.     It 
is   indeed   possible,  that   by  reading   as  a  lawyer, 
who  wishes  to  force  every  passage  to  say  as  little  as 
possible,  he  may  make  the  Review  a  very  mild  and 
harmless  tiling.     I   know  too,  that  here   and  thera 
some  qualifying  language  may  be  found,  under  which 
the  Reviewer,   if  he  will   stoop  to  it,  may  strive  to 
take  refuge.     But  the  question   is,  not  what  a  verbal 
critick,  with  a  dictionary  in  his  hand,  may  make  out  of 
the  Review,   but   what    are   the   impressions   which 
readers    at  large   receive  from  it,  of  the   sentiments 
and  cliaractcr  of  the  great  body  of  liberal  ministers 
and  christians.     This  is  the  fair  and  established  rule 
by  which  we  are  to  judge  of  writings,  and  especially 
of    those    in   which  vioral  character    is     assailed. 
The  question,   and    the  only  question,  is,  what  will 
men  of  common  sense  and  common  feelings   gather 
from  this  Review.     On  this  point,  I  did  not  suppose 
that  a  doubt  could  exist.     I  never  anticipated  any 


difference  of  construction.  I  thought  it  as  impossi- 
ble to  err  in  regard  to  the  obvious  import  and  design 
of  this  publication,  as  to  mistake  midniglit  for  noon. 
An  attempt  to  prove  that  the  Review  was  not  written 
in  English,  would  hardly  have  surprised  me  more^ 
than  the  attempt  which  has  been  made  to  show  that 
it  does  not  convey  the  impressions  1  have  stated.  I 
very  much  suspect,  from  what  Dr.  Worcester  has 
observed  about  our  "  temporizing"  and  '^  culpable 
disguise,"  that  before  he  finished  his  letter,  he  under- 
stood the  Review  not  very  diiferently  from  myself. 
But  enough  has  been  said  on  this  first  head  of  Dr. 
Worcester's  letter. 

The  next  great  object  of  Dr.  Worcester's  letter,  if 
I  understand  him,  is  to  convey  to  his  readers  the 
impression,  that  our  mode  of  preaching  is  ^^  conceal- 
ed, indistinct,  and  unfaithful."  This  he  attempts  to 
prove,  first  from  the  statement  which  I  made  of  the 
views  of  liberal  christians  in  relation  to  the  character 
of  Jesus  Christ.  This  statement,  he  says,  is  ambi- 
guous and  indistinct.  Tliat  it  is  general,  that  it  does 
not  descend  to  particulars,  I  grant;  but  I  deny  that 
it  is  ambiguous,  if  considered,  as  it  ought  to  be,  in 
relation  to  the  object  for  which  it  was  mad©.  Does 
not  Dr.  Worcester  perfectly  know,  that  it  was  simply 
designed  to  repel  the  charge  of  the  Reviewer,  thai 
we  are  Unitarians  in  Mr.  Belsham's  sense  of  the 
word  ?  Was  it  necessary,  that  in  such  a  statement 
every  question  should  be  met  and  answered,  wliicli 
may  possibly  be  started  in  relation  to  our  sentiments  ? 
Have  not  I,  in  my  turn,  an  equal  right  to  reproach 


Dr.  Worcester  with  ambiguity  and  indistinctness? 
Has  he  any  where  told  us,  which  of  the  many,  vei-y 
many  explanations  of  the  Trinity  he  and  his  brethren 
embrace,  and  are  determined  to  impose  on  us  as  the 
term  of  christian  communion  ?  Has  he  told  us  the 
precise  scheme  of  atonement  which  he  adopts,  or 
which  of  the  many  definitions  of  faith  he  has  selected? 
How  easily  might  this  reply  be  extended  ?  But  I 
pass  to  the  next  consideration. 

The  next  proof  of  our  preaching  in  a  "  concealed, 
indistinct,  and  unfaithful  manner,"  is  derived  from  the 
account  which  I  liave  given  of  our  general  style  of 
preaching.  I  did  think  that  this  account  was  too 
simple  to  be  misunderstood.  My  statement  was 
plainly  this — that  we  labour  to  preach  the  truth,  to 
preach  whatever  we  clearly  discover  in  the  word  of 
God ;  but  that,  in  doing  this,  we  generally  avoid  refer- 
ences to  opinions  which  we  do  not  receive,  and  never 
bold  up  those  christians  who  diifer  from  us  to  cen- 
sure or  contempt.  According  to  this  statement,  we 
evidently  preach  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  as  far 
as  we  understand  it.  But  Dr.  Worcester,  passing 
over  this  account,  has  selected  a  passage,  in  which  I 
observe,  that  ^^  we  urge  perpetually  those  great  truths 
and  precepts  about  which  there  is  little  contention, 
and  which  have  an  immediate  bearing  on  the  temper 
and  life."  From  this  passage  he  infers,  that  we  can 
urge  none  of  the  ^'  primary  and  peculiar  doctrines 
"  and  institutions  of  the  Gospel,  because  about  all 
these  there  has  been  great  contention."  To  this  I  an- 
swer, first,  that  I  have  never  understood,  that  there  ha« 
been  much  contention  about  the  ^^  real  precejpts^^  of 


the  gospel,  not  even  about  those  which  have  been  most 
habitually  disregarded.  Christians,  satisfied  with  dis- 
missing these  from  their  lives,  have  retained  them  in 
their  systems.  Even  the  bitterest  persecuters  in  the 
church  have  never  disputed  the  precepts  of  '"  loving 
their  neigbour  as  themselves,"  iand  of  "  doing  to  others 
as  they  would  have  others  do  to  tliem.''  On  tlie  con- 
trary,  they  have  insisted,  that  burning,  beheading,  de- 
faming and  denouncing  tliose,  whom  they  called  here- 
ticks,  were  perfectly  consistent  with  christian  love, 
and  were  even  bright  expressions  of  evangelical  cha- 
rity ! — It  may  next  be  observed,  that  the  common  dis- 
putes about  the  ^^  great  doctrines^^  of  the  gospel 
have  not  related  so  much  to  their  truth  and  impor- 
tance as  to  some  inferiour  points  connected  with 
them.  For  example,  there  has  been  much  de- 
bate about  the  benevolence  of  God,  whether  it 
forms  his  whole  moral  character,  and  his  highest 
spring  of  action,  or  whether  it  be  subordinate  to  wis- 
dom or  rectitude  ;  but  all  parties  have  agreed  that 
God  is  benevolent.  In  the  same  manner,  many  have 
disputed  about  the  omnipresence  of  God,  whether  his 
substance  be  extended  through  infinite  space,  or  whe- 
ther he  be  present  only  by  his  knowledge  and  power 
to  every  portion  of  space.  But  all  have  agreed  that 
God  is  omnipresent.  In  like  manner  christians  have 
disputed  about  the  precise  way  in  which  Christ's 
death  has  an  influence  ou  our  forgiveness  ;  but  that 
it  has  a  real  and  important  influence  on  forgiveness, 
almost  all  unite  in  asserting.  Once  more,  Christians 
have  never  been  weary  with  disputing  on  the  mode 


10 

and  extent  of  spiritual  influences  ;  but,  with  verj 
few  exceptions,  all  maintain  that  these  influences  are 
real  and  are  promised  to  our  prayers.  Let  no  one  then 
say,  tliat  we  preach  no  primary  or  peculiar  doctrines 
of  Christianity  because  we  insist  perpetually  on  prin- 
ciples in  which  the  different  classes  of  Christian* 
generally  concur.  Such  principles,  we  sincerely 
believe,  form  the  very  substance  and  glory  of  the 
gospel.  They  shine  with  a  clear  and  unsullied  splen- 
dour. We  are  deeply  impressed  with  their  truth, 
their  supreme  importance,  and  their  sufficiency  to 
salvation ;  and  therefore  we  urge  them  with  unwearied 
importunity,  with  zeal  and  affection.  It  is  very  pos- 
sible that  Dr.  Worcester  will  go  on  to  object,  that, 
according  to  this  very  account,  our  preaching  must 
be  very  general,  vague,  wanting  in  precision,  and 
therefore  unfaithful.  The  answer  is  short.  If  we 
are  indeed  general  and  vague  in  our  representa- 
tion of  the  truths  of  the  Gospel,  it  is  because  we  are 
faithfulf  because  we  dare  not  be  precise  above  what 
is  written,  because  we  stop  where  the  Scriptures  seem 
to  us  to  stop,  and  because  we  have  a  very  deep  and 
sorrowful  persuasion,  that  our  religion  has  been  ex- 
ceedingly defaced  and  corrupted  by  the  bold  attempt* 
of  theologians  to  give  minute  explanations  of  its  gen- 
eral truths,  and  to  cramp  it  with  the  fetters  of  syste- 
matick  precision.  We  tell  our  hearers,  that  God  sent 
his  Son  to  die  for  us,  exalted  him  to  be  our  Prince 
and  Saviour,  and  ordained  him  to  be  judge  of  the 
quick  and  dead,  and  never  think  it  necessary  or 
fh^itliXul  to  All  uj^  the  outline  of  Scripture,  by  adding 


a 

that  the  Sorif  who  was  sent,  was  the  very  God  who 
sent  him,  or  by  speculating  on  the  infinite  evil  of  sin, 
and  on  the  necessity  of  an  infinite  atonement,  in  order 
to  illustrate  the  fitness  of  such  a  mediator.  Thus, 
then,  we  preach.  Whether  our  preaching  be  nothing 
more  than  the  inculcation  of  *»  natural  religion," 
let  our  hearers  determine. 

Dr.  Worcester,  to  render  our  mode  of  preaching 
odious,  asks,  if  the  "  apostles  avoided  controversy," 
and  never  "attempted  to  refute  errour,"  &c.  &c.  We 
think  the  answer  very  obvious.  In  the  first  place,  we 
wonder  that  any  can  confound  the  situation  of  min- 
isters in  a  christian  country,  where  the  gospel  has 
long  been  known  and  acknowledged,  with  the  situa- 
tion of  the  apostles,  who  preached  a  new  religion 
which  the  multitude  derided  and  opposed,  and  which 
their  new  and  ignorant  converts  were  continually 
corrupting  with  Jewish  and  heathen  mixtures.  We 
sincerely  beliere,  that  the  great  principles,  for  which 
the  apostles  contended,  are  now  received  with  little 
dispute  in  Christian  communities,  and  we  conceive 
that  the  great  business  of  a  minister  is  to  urge  those 
truths  in  tlieir  primitive  simplicity  on  the  hearts  and 
consciences  of  men,  instead  of  making  them  subjects 
of  controversy. 

There  is  another  important  remark  on  this  point. 
We  do  not  pass  sentence  like  apostles  on  many 
subjects  of  controversy  among  christians,  for  this 
very  plain  reason — that  we  are  not  apostles.  We 
are,  what  we  labour  never  to  forget,  uninspired  and 
fallible  men,  and  we  are  apt  to  distrust  ourselves, 
when  persons  of  intelligence  and  piety  see  cause  to 


diiferfi'OiH  us  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  We 
dare  not  preach  like  apostles  on  points  which  have 
perplexed  and  divided  men  of  the  profoundest  thought 
and  the  purest  lives  ;  and  we  know  from  the  genius 
and  leading  principles  of  Christianity,  that  these 
points  are  not,  and  cannot  be  essential  to  salvation. 
We  dare  not  imitate  the  bold  and  positive  language, 
in  which  the  darkest  doctrines  are  sometimes  urged 
as  undoubted  and  essential,  and  in  which  the  sentence 
of  excommunication  is  pronounced  on  serious  inqui- 
rers after  truth,  by  some  who  discover  no  superiority 
of  intellect  or  virtue. 

1  now  come  to  a  part  of  Dr.  Worcester's  letter 
which,  if  I  were  to  consult  my  feelings  rather  than 
my  sense  of  duty,  I  should  pass  over  in  silence.  I 
refer  to  his  insinuation,  that  we  have  adopted  a  style 
of  preaching  opposed  to  that  of  the  apostles,  because 
we  wish  to  avoid  the  sufferings  which  those  holy  men 
encountered,  and  wish  to  secure  the  favour  of  the 
world.  Dr.  Worcester's  language  is  sufficiently  soft 
and  guarded,  and  by  certain  rules  of  criticism  it  may 
perhaps  be  proved  to  mean  little  or  nothing.  But  I 
am  accustomed  to  judge  of  writings,  which  affect 
moral  character,  by  the  impression  which  they  make 
on  the  mass  of  readers ;  and  the  impression  produced 
by  Dr.  Worcester  undoubtedly  is,  that  we  are  guilty 
of  base  compliances,  and  of  shunning  to  declare  the 
whole  counsel  of  God  from  regard  to  human  applause. 
I  have  already  intimated,  that  I  am  not  disposed  to 
notice  the  sarcasms,  verbal  criticisms,  and  half- 
humorous  expressions  of  regard  which  are  scattered 


i^ 


through  Dr.  Worcester's  letter,  and  directed  against 
myself.     But   reproaches   cast   on    my  friends  and 
brethren,   on   men   whose   piety  and  virtues  entitle 
them  to  respect,  I  shall  always  repel,  let  them  come 
from  what  quarter  they  may.     Dr.  Worcester  owes 
It  to  himself,  to  cast  away  these  dishonourable  wea- 
pons.    It   does   not   become  him  to  strengthen  the 
hands  of  those,  who  are  assailing  the  honest  reputa- 
tion  of  his  brethren—Besides,  is  it  very  clear,  that  we, 
above  all  other  ministers  in  this  country,  are  swayed 
and  corrupted  by  human  opinion  ?     Is  it  not  noto- 
rious, that  we  have  espoused  an  unpopular  cause? 
Is  it  not  tlie  boast  of  the  Reviewer,  that  from   Con- 
necticut to  Georgia  all  "  orthodox  christians'^   deny 
us  communion?    Is  it  not  notorious,  that  beyond  a 
narrow  sphere  our  names  are  loaded  with  ixiproach  ? 
It  is  true,  we  receive  marks  of  affection  and  respect  at 
home,  far,  far  beyond  our  consciousness  of  desert.  But 
do  aspiring  men  confine  their  views  to  their  homes  ? 
And  is  it  not  a  fact,  that  unwearied  pains  are  employ, 
ed  to  rob  us  even  of  this  limited  esteem,  to  alienate 
from  us  our  friends  and  societies  ?     If  we   indeed 
prefer  applause  to  principle,  why  is  it,    that  we  do 
not  accommodate  our  language  to  tJie  system  of  our 
opponents,  adopt  a  few  popular  phrases,  call  our- 
selves  Trinitarians,  on  the  ground  of  our  believing  in 
the  Father,  the   Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  thus 
turn  from   us,  (as  we   easily  might   without  giving 
offence  to  our  hearers)  the  torrent  of  reproach  and 
denunciation.—It  is  a  little  remarkable,  that  gentle^ 
men,  who,  as  they  boast,  have  all  the  colleges,  of  the 


14 

country  on  their  side  with  one  solitary  exception, 
who  have  at  tlieir  command  literary  honours,  seats 
in  conventions,  in  general  assemblies,  and  in  the 
largest  religious  associations,  should  take  credit  to 
thiMuselves  for  self-denial,  and  for  preaching  unpopu- 
lar truth,  and  should  lay  at  our  door,  as  peculiarly 
ours,  the  sins  of  compliance  with  the  prejudices  and 
passions  of  mankind.  I  make  this  remark,  not  from 
any  desire  to  cast  back  the  charge  of  Dr.  Worcester 
on  himself  or  his  friends,  but  simply  with  the  view 
of  shewing  the  inconsistency  of  the  insinuations  by 
which  the  reputation  of  my  brethren  is  to  be  blasted. 
I  now  come  to  what  appears  to  me  the  third  great 
object  of  Dr.  Worcester,  in  his  letter.  I  refer  to  his 
attempts  to  render  our  sentiments  odious,  and  to  jus- 
tify those  who,  on  account  of  our  sentiments,  would 
exclude  us  from  the  christian  church.  To  render 
our  sentiments  odious,  he  again  and  again  intimates., 
that  Unitarians,  of  course,  reject  all  the  great  and 
distinguishing  doctrines  of  the  gospel,  particularly 
the  doctrine  of  atonement  by  Christ's  death.  Is  it 
possible  that  Dr.  Worcester  has  not  read  so  common 
a  writer  as  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke,  the  most  popular 
perhaps  of  all  Unitarian  writers,  and  in  whose  works 
tlie  doctrine  of  atonement,  as  commonly  held,  is  in- 
sisted on  with  great  frequency  and  force?  Has 
he  not  learned  from  so  common  a  book  as  "  Bible 
News,"  that  many  Unitarians  sincerely  believe,  that 
the  efficacy  of  Christ's  death  in  obtaining  forgiveness 
must  be  inexpressibly  greater  upon  their  system, 
than  upon  the   system  of  the  Trinitarians,   which 


15 

makes  the  sufferiDgs  of  Jesus  nothing  more  than  the 
sufferings  of  a  man.  There  is  one  sentence  of  Dr. 
Worcester  on  this  subject  which  amazed  me.  He 
says  to  me,  "  you  will,  doubtless,  not  hesitate  to  ac- 
"  knowledge,  wliat  1  have  certainly  great  sorrow  in 
"  stating,  that  the  doctrines  of  atonement  by  Christ's 
"  death,  and  justification  through  faith  in  his  bloo{l, 

"  AS  HELD  BY  ORTHODOX  CHRISTIANS  IN  ALL  AGES 

"  OF  THE  CHURCH,  fall  at  oiicc  to  the  ground  before 
"  you."  Astonishing  assertion  !  If  I  were  not  as- 
sured that  Dr.  Worcester  is  a  man  of  respectability, 
I  should  be  tempted  to  say.  Astonishing  hardihood  of 
assertion  !  What  !  does  Dr.  Worcester  really  be- 
lieve, that  I  will  acknowledge  without  hesitation, 
that  I  reject  these  or  any  other  doctrines,  as  they 
were  held  by  "  orthodox  christians,"  in  the  age  of 
Christ  and  of  his  apostles,  or  as  held  by  ^^  orthodox 
christians"  in  any  age  of  the  church  ?  1  sincerely 
believe  that  this  strange  assertion  is  not  to  be  ascribed 
to  bad  intention,  but  to  haste  and  inadvertence. 
I  regret  however  that  a  sentence,  so  adapted  to 
awaken  popular  passions,  should  have  escaped 
from  his  pen.  I  am  not  disposed  to  protract  this 
controversy  by  stating  what  I  conceive  to  be  the 
prevalent  sentiments  of  liberal  christians  on  the 
subject  of  Christ's  mediation.  I  will  only  say,  that 
had  Dr.  Worcester  known  thera  better,  he  would 
have  spoken  on  this,  as  on  some  other  subjects,  with 
much  greater  caution. — Before  leaving  this  head,  I 
would  protest  against  Dr.  Worcester's  habit  of 
fastening  on  his  opponents  the  consequences  which 


1ft 

seem  to  him  to  follow  from  this  system.  This  prac- 
tice is  unfair  and  injurious,  and  has  betrayed  Dr. 
Worcester  into  misrepresentation.  Suppose  that  I, 
availing  myself  of  this  expeditious  way  of  settling 
the  opinions  of  others,  should  make  a  collection  of 
the  inferences  wliich  seem  to  me  to  flow  from  the 
doctrine  that  God  is  the  author  of  sin,  and  suppose 
that  I  should  publish  this  collection  to  the  world  as 
the  creed  of  those  christians,  by  whom  this  doctrine 
is  received  ;  v.ouldtiiey  not  reproach  me  as  a  libel- 
ler  ?  But  I  have  no  disposition  to  fasten  this  or  any 
other  bad  name  on  Dr.  Worcester. 

Another  method  adopted  by  Dr.  Worcester  for 
rendering  our  sentiments  odious,  is  this.  It  is  urged, 
that  our  sentiments  lead  us  into  an  entire  indiffennee 
to  christian  trut!i ;  that  we  believe  ail  errour  to  be 
innocent ;  that  we  consider  belief  in  the  truth  as  no 
virtue  ;  and  that  we  thus  set  aside  those  passages  of 
scripture  in  which  the  highest  importance  is  attaclied 
to  this  belief.  This  objection  is  founded  on  our 
extending  the  name  and  privileges  of  christians  to 
the  lowest  Unitarians,  who  liold  some  sentiments, 
from  which,  as  I  stated,  we  generally  shrink  with 
aversion.  Now  1  deny  that  any  indifference  to 
truth,  or  any  contempt  of  tliose  passages  which 
enjoin  belief  of  the  truth,  is  implied  in  this  extension 
of  our  charity.  I  indeed  very  readily  grant,  that 
^^  belief  of  the  trutli,"  in  the  ordinary  acceptation  of 
that  phrase,  does  not  seem  to  us  a  virtue ;  and  for 
this,  among  other  reasons,  that  were  it  so,  Satan 
might  boast  of  higher  virtue  than  any  saint  on  earthv 


17 

Satan  believes  and  trembles.  The  faith  to  which 
salvatioQ  is  promised  in  scripture,  seems  to  us  to 
reside  in  the  heart  much  more  than  in  the  under- 
standing. The  true  believer  is  distinguished  not  by 
clearness  and  extent  of  views,  but  by  a  '*  love  of 
light,"  a  "love  of  the  truth,''  originating  in  a  sincere 
desire  to  "do  the  will  of  God."  We  wonder  that 
Dr.  Worcester  did  not  discover  this  obvious  princi- 
ple in  the  very  passages  which  he  has  quoted  to  con- 
demn our  liberality  towards  the  erroneous.  "This 
"is  the  condemnation,  that  light  is  come  into  tlie 
"world,  and  men  loved  darkness  rather  than  light, 
"  because  their  deeds  were  cui7."  "  Because  they 
^'  received  not  the  love  of  the  truth,  God  shall  send 
"  them  strong  delusion,  that  all  might  be  damned, 
"  who  believed  not  the  truth,  but  had  pleasure  in 
"  unrighteousness.^^  This  love  of  divine  truth,  this 
honest,  unprejudiced,  obedient  mind,  we  highly 
venerate  and  always  enjoin  as  essential  to  salvation. 
But  we  know  that  this  love  of  truth  is  consistent 
with  the  reception  of  many  errours.  We  know  that 
the  apostles,  during  the  life  of  their  master,  possessed 
this  temper  in  a  sufficient  degree  to  constitute  them 
his  followers,  and  yet  they  grossly  misunderstood 
some  of  his  plainest  and  most  important  declarations. 
We  believe  too  that  at  the  present  day,  many  in  every 
christian  country  are  placed  in  circumstances,  almost 
if  not  quite  as  unfavourable  to  a  clear  understanding 
of  the  gospel,  as  the  apostles  were  under  the  minis- 
try of  Jesus.  From  considerations  of  this  nature, 
from  a  knowledge  of  the  amazing  power  of  education 

3 


18 

.ind  other  circumstances  over  the  opinions  of  eveiy 
mind,  and  from  a  fear  that  we,  as  well  as  others,  may 
have  been  swayed  and  blinded  by  unsuspected  infe- 
licities attending  our  condition,  we.  are  very  unwilling 
to  decide  on  the  degree  of  truth,  which  is  required  to 
tlie  salvation  of  every  individual,  or  to  say  that  the 
erroiirs  of  an  apparently  sincere  professor  of  Chris- 
tianity are  inconsistent  with  a  pious  character.  In 
our  judgment  of  professed  christians,  we  are  guided 
more  by  their  temper  and  lives  than  by  any  pecu- 
liarities of  opinion.  We  lay  it  down  as  a  great  and 
indisputable  principle,  clear  as  tlie  sun  at  noonday, 
that  the  great  end  for  which  christian  truth  is  re- 
vealed, is  the  sanctification  of  the  soul,  the  formation 
of  tlie  christian  character  ;  and  wherever  we  see  the 
marks  of  this  character  displayed  in  a  professed 
disciple  of  Jesus,  we  hope,  and  rejoice  to  hope,  that 
he  has  received  all  the  truth  which  is  necessary  to 
his  salvation.  Acting  on  this  rule,  we  cannot  ex- 
clude from  the  church  the  lowest  Unitarians  who 
profess  subjection  to  Jesus  Christ.  Of  this  class  we 
have  known  or  heard  of  individuals,  who  have 
breathed  the  genuine  spirit  of  their  master ;  who 
have  discovered  a  singular  conscientiousness  in  all 
the  walks  of  life  ;  whose  charity  has  overflowed  in 
good  deeds ;  whose  wills  have  been  resigned  in 
affliction  ;  and  who  lived  as  seeking  a  better  country, 
even  a  heavenly.  Such  men  we  have  not  dared  to 
exclude  from  the  christian  church,  on  the  ground  of 
what  seem  to  us  great  errours,  any  more  than  to  ex- 
clude the  disciples  of  Calvin  ;  whose  errours  we  also 


19 

deeply  lament,  but  whose  errours  ave  often  concealed 
from  us  by  the  brightness  of  their  christian  virtues. 

We  are  not  conscious,  that  l)y  this  liberality  we 
at  all  oppose  those  passages  of  scripture,  in  which 
great  stress  is  laid  upon  belief  of  the  truth  ;  for  we 
are  convinced,  from  laborious  research  into  the  scrip- 
tures, that  the  great  truth,  which  is  the  object  of 
christian  belief,  and  which  in  the  first  age  conferred 
the  character  of  disciples  on  all  who  received  it,  is 
simply  this,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  or  anointed  by 
God  to  be  the  light  and  saviour  of  the  world.  When- 
ever this  great  truth  appears  to  us  to  be  sincerely 
acknowledged,  whenever  a  man  of  apparent  upright- 
ness declares  to  us  his  reception  of  Jesus  in  this 
character,  and  his  corresponding  purpose  to  study 
and  obey  his  religion,  we  feel  ourselves  bound  to 
give  him  the  hand  of  christian  fellowship,  and  to 
leave  it  to  the  final  judge  to  determine  how  far  he  is 
faithful  in  searching  after  the  will  of  his  Lord.  Tliis 
duty  of  searching,  and  of  searching  with  humility  and 
with  a  single  and  fearless  regard  to  truth,  we  con- 
stantly inculcate;  and  we  sincerely  believe,  that  in 
this  way  we  approve  ourselves  friends  of  truth  much 
more  sincerely,  than  if  we  should  aim  to  terrify  and 
prostrate  the  minds  of  our  hearers,  by  threatening 
them  with  everlasting  misery,  unless  they  receive  the 
peculiar  views  of  the  gospel,  which  we  have  seen  fit 
to  espouse. 

There  is  a  part  of  Dr.  Worcester's  letter,  accord- 
ing to  which  our  charity  towards  tlie  lowest  Unita- 
rians not  only  proves  our  indiiference  to   truth,  but 


20 

makes  us  partakers  in  their  sentiments  and  deeds. 
Uecause  we  bear  *•  no  decided  testimony  against 
tliem,"  and  because  we  are  called  by  the  same 
geneial  name  of  '*  liberal  cbristians,''  Dr.  Worcester 
thinks  that  we  were  properly  confounded  with  them 
by  the  ileviewor.  I  wonder  that  Dr.  Worcester  did 
not  perceive  that  this  argument  was  a  two-edged 
sword,  and  miglit  do  equal  execution  among  friends 
and  foes.  It  is  well  known  that  the  old  fashioned 
Calvinists  in  general  regard  the  ''new  divinity'^  of  the 
Hopkinslans  with  great  horrour ;  but  it  is  also  true 
that  •'  a  peculiar  brotherhood  is  established''  between 
tltese  two  classes  of  Christians  in  New-England. 
Tltey  both  by  mutual  consent  take  shelter  under  the 
name  of  "orthodox."  The  Calvinists  here  have 
never,  as  a  party,  borne  testimony  against  Hopkin- 
sian  peculiarities,  have  never  "  purged  themselves 
from  the  guilt  of  them,"  but  walk  witli  Hopkinsiang 
on  as  friendly  terms  as  we  do  witli  the  lowest  Unita- 
rians. According  to  Dr.  Worcester,  then,  the  guilt 
of  these  false  and  horrid  peculiarities  lies  at  their 
door.  Tiiey  esteem  '*  errour  no  crime,"  and  "  belief 
of  the  truth  no  virtue."  The  old  fashioned  Cal- 
vinists of  New-York,  however,  have  been  more  care- 
ful to  ^'  purge  themselves  from  this  guilt."  The 
clergy  of  tliat  city  have  almost  w^ithout  exception 
united  in  publick  declarations,  that  Hopkinsianism, 
"  is  at  war  with  the  philosophy  of  the  human  mind, 
w\ih  common  sense,  iuu\  witii  tiie  word  of  the  living 
God.  Su-'h  sentiments,  in  whatever  connexion  they 
may  be  taught,  by  whatever  names  they  may  be  re- 


Si 

commended,  ought  to  be  exposed  and  reprohaied  in 
the  most  decided  manner."     "  They  nothing  doubt 
that  christians,  upon  sober  research,  will  find  Hop- 
kinianism    to  be    in    some    very    material    points 
<  ANOTHER  gospel'  indeed."    "  By  whatever  name 
or  title  they,  i.e.  Hopkinsians,  may  be  distinguished, 
they  have  departed,  in  many  points,  from  the  confes- 
sions of  faith  and  the  form  of  sound  words  adopted 
by  the  reformed  churches,  and  it   is  time  they  were 
known,  and  a  line  op'  distinction  drawn."    "  li 
is  a  duty  of  all  tiie  Lord's    people  to  contend  ear- 
nestly for  the  faith.     It  is  especially  incumbent  on 
those  who   are  set  for  the  defence  of  the  gospel,  to 
descry  approaching    danger,   and  should  an   angel 
from  heaven  preach  another  gospel  to  denounce  and 
resist  him."     "  These  writers,"    i.  e.  Hopkinsian, 
"have  gained  a  reputation  far  beyond  what  nonsense 
and  impiety  should  acquire  for  a  divine."  "  They  are 
preparing  the  way  for  a  more  extensive  diffusion  of 
infidel  jwinciples  and  even  of  atheism  in  our  country." 
See  the  recommendations  prefixed  to  Ely's  contrast 
between  Calvinism  and  Hopkinsianism  by  Dr.  Smith, 
Dr.  Romeyn,  Dr.  Mason,  Dr.  Livingston,  &c.  &c. 
It  seems,  then,  that  others,  as  well  as  Dr.  Worcester, 
claim  the  privilege  of  sitting  in  judgment  on  their 
brethren.    The  measure  he  would  mete  to  others,  is 
ready  to  be  measured  to  himself  again,  and  it  is  very 
possible,  that  with   all  his  orthodoxy  he  may  soon 
suffer  unu'r  the  very  same  sentence,  which  he  passes 
so  rashly  on  one  third  of  the  clergy  of  this    state. 
Such  are  the  first  fruits   of  a  faith,  which  works  by 
uncharitableness  and  not  by  love. 


But  Dr.  Worcester  has  not  merely  aimed  to  make 
our  sentiments  odious.  I  would  to  God,  that  he  had 
stopped  here.  He  has  openly  taken  part  with  those 
who  insist,  that  on  account  of  our  sentiments  we 
ought  to  he  denied  Christian  fellowship,  and  to  be 
driven  from  tlie  church  as  unworthy  the  christian 
name.  This  is  infinitely  the  most  important  part  of 
Dr.  Worcester's  letter.  All  the  rest  is  compara- 
tively trifling.  I  exceedingly  regret  that  Dr.  Wor- 
cester has  not  brought  this  subject  fully  and  fairly 
before  the  publick.  He  has  mixed  together  topicks, 
which  ought  not  to  be  confounded,  and  has  thus,  I 
trust  unintentionally,  blinded  his  reader.  His 
readers  will  imagine,  that  the  separation  to  which 
Unitarians  object  on  the  part  of  Trinitarians  is  no- 
thing more  than  the  separation  which  Dr.  Worcester 
says  has  been  made  by  Unitarians  themselves  in 
England,  a  separation  in  icorshipf  a  separation  pro- 
duced by  the  adoption  of  prayers,  hymns  and  doxo- 
logies  accommodated  to  their  peculiar  sentiments. 
This  view  of  the  subject  has  given  Dr.  Worcester 
afield  for  his  powers  of  humour  and  sarcasm.  But 
this  is  not  the  true  question.  No.  No.  It  is  some- 
thiug  more  solemn  than  this.  The  question  is  this, 
Whether  those  persons,  who  cannot  receive  as  a 
truth  of  revelation  the  doctrine  that  the  one  God  is 
three  distinct  persons,  shall  be  denied  christian 
fellowship,  or  in  other  words,  shall  be  denied  the 
name  and  privileges  of  Ciiristians.  This  was  the 
proposition  of  the  Review  er,  and  with  the  sincerest 
forrow  I  find  that  to  this  Dr.  Worcester  accedes. 


33 

To  him  I  did  look  for  a  healing  spirit,  for  an  exani^ 
pie  of  forbearance,  and  moderation.  Bnt  he  has 
solemnly  and  publickly  given  all  his  iniluence  to  the 
opinion,  that  we  and  all  who  agree  with  us  on  the 
subject  of  the  Trinity  are  to  be  disowned  by  the 
church  of  Christ.  The  obvious  import  of  the  con- 
cluding part  of  his  letter  (and  it  is  the  obvious  import, 
and  not  a  strained  and  circuitous  interpretation  which 
I  regard)  may  be  thus  expressed.  "Every  man 
who  cannot  admit  as  a  doctrine  of  Scripture,  the 
great  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  God,  which  I 
and  other  orthodox  Christians  embrace,  believes  an 
opposite  gospel,  rejects  the  true  gospel,  despises  the 
authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  is  of  course  a  man  wholly 
wanting  in  true  piety  and  without  christian  virtue;  and 
may  in  perfect  consistency  with  christian  love  be  re- 
jected as  unworthy  the  name  of  a  christian."  I  confess 
I  do  shudder  at  hearing  from  a  frail  and  fallible  crea- 
ture this  tremendous  sentence  passed  on  men  of  the 
profoundest  understandings,  of  the  purest  lives,  and 
of  unwearied  devotion  to  the  study  of  God's  word  ; 
and  passed  on  these  men,  because  they  cannot  receive 
a  doctrine,  which  bears  the  strongest  marks  of  incon- 
sistency with  that  fundamental  truth  of  all  religion, 
the  unity  of  God,  and  which  for  ages  has  perplexed 
and  distressed  the  mind  of  almost  every  reflecting 
christian.  Was  Dr.  Worcester  sensible  of  the 
solemn  responsibility  which  he  took  on  himself, 
when  he  advanced  the  sentiments  in  the  close  of  his 
letter  ?  Is  he  confident  that  no  Antitrinitarians  are 
pious  men  ?     Is  he  sure  that  he  has  not  been  labour- 


ing  to  drive  from  the  christian  fold  the  friends  of 
Jesus  and  tlie  heirs  of  salvation  ? 

Before  Dr.  Worcester  took  so  solemnly  this  ground, 
it  became  him  to  inquire  most  seriously  into  the  doc- 
trine of  three  persons  being  one  God,  to  weigh  well  the 
arguments  of  those  who  oppose  it,  and  to  observe  with 
candour  their  tempers  and  lives.  Nothing  but  the  deep- 
est and  most  deliberate  conviction  tiiat  this  doctrine 
of  the  trinity  is  indisputably  true,  that  it  is  accorapa^ 
nied  by  evidence  which  renders  the  disbelief  of  it 
inexcusable,  and  that  the  scriptures  insist  upon  it  as 
an  indispensable  mark  of  a  true  believer,  could  have 
justified  him  in  condemning  as  strangers  to  christian 
virtue  men  of  established  integrity,  who  profess  with 
seriousness  to  revere  the  Saviour,  aud  to  make 
his  instruction  the  rule  of  their  faith  and  practice.  I 
appeal  to  the  conscience  of  Dr.  Worcester,  and  I 
beseech  him  to  ask  himself  with  sincerity,  whether 
he  possesses  this  deep  conviction,  and  whether  it  is 
the  result  of  calm,  patient  and  extensive  research. 
If  he  shall  answer  in  the  affirmative,  I  then  re- 
spectfully call  upon  him  in  the  name  of  those  on 
whom  he  has  shut  the  door  of  the  christian  church, 
to  "  produce  his  reasons,"  to  shew  the  ground  of 
his  confident  persuasion  that  this  doctrine  is  un- 
doubtedly true,  and  that  the  Scriptures  demand  the 
acknowledgment  of  it  as  necessary  to  the  character 
of  a  pious  christian,  I  also  beg  him  to  state  with 
all  possible  precision,  what  particular  view  of  the 
trinity  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  receive  in  order  to 
salvation,  and  in  what  language  our  faith  must  be 


25 

expressed.  I  do  not  ask  him  to  discuss  these  points 
in  a  letter  to  me  or  to  any  opponent.  The  con- 
troversy is  not  to  be  despatched  in  a  few  pages, 
nor  ought  it  to  be  mingled  with  any  personalities. 
Let  it  take  another  form,  the  form  of  general  dis- 
cussion. I  promise  Dr.  Worcester  that  his  argu- 
ments shall  be  seriously  weighed,  and  I  trust  that 
those  on  whom  he  has  past  the  sentence  of 
exclusion  will  not  be  backward  to  defend  wliat 
they  deem  the  truth,  or  to  vindicate  their  claim  to 
the  name  of  christians. 

The  principal  argument  which  Dr.  Worcester  of- 
fers  in  favour  of  the  proposed  separation  is,  tlie  great- 
ness of  the  differences  between  Trinitarians  and  Uni- 
tarians. I  sincerely  regret  that  these  differences  are  so 
studiously  magnified,  whilst  the  points  of  agreement 
between  these  classes  of  Christians  are  studiously  over- 
looked.   Dr.  Watts  and  Dr.  Doddridge  have  left  us 
a  better  example.     Trinitarians  and  Unitarians  both 
believe  in  one  God,  one  infinite   and  self- existent 
mind.     According  to  the  first,  this  God  is  three  per- 
sons ;  according  to  the  last,  he  is  one  person.     Ought 
this  difference,  which  relates  to  the  obscurest  of  all 
subjects,  to  the  essence  and  metaphysical  nature  of 
God,  and  which  common  christians  cannot  under- 
stand, to  divide  and  alienate  those  who  ascribe  to  this 
one  God  the  same  perfections,  who  praise  him  for  the 
same  blessings,  who  hope  from  his  mercy  the  same 
forgiveness,    who    receive    on   his    authority    the 
same  commands,   and  who   labour  to  maintain  the 
same  spirit  of  devotion  to  his  will  and  glory. — A<^- 


cording  to  Trinitarians,  Jesus,  who  suffered  and  died 
on  the  cross,  is  a  derived  being,  personally  united 
with  the  self-existent  God.  According  to  the  Unita- 
rians, he  is  a  derived  being,  intimately  united  with 
the  self-existent  God.  Ought  this  difference,  which 
transcends  the  conception  of  common  christians,  to 
divide  and  alienate  those,  who  love  the  same  excel- 
lent character  in  Jesus  Christ ;  who  desire  to  breathe 
his  spirit  and  follow  his  steps  ;  who  confide  in  him, 
as  perfectly  adapted  to  the  work  which  he  was  sent 
to  accomplish  ;  and  who  labour  to  derive  just  con- 
ceptions  of  his  nature  from  his  own  instructions?  The 
differences  between  Trinitarians  and  Unitarians  are 
very  often  verbal.  As  soon  as  Trinitarians  attempt  to 
shew  the  consistency  of  their  doctrine  of  three  persons 
with  the  divine  unity,  their  peculiarities  begin  to  van- 
ish, and  in  many  of  their  writings  little  or  nothing  is 
left  but  one  God  acting  in  three  characters,  or 
sustaining  three  relations,  and  intimately  united  with 
his  son  Jesus  Christ.  Ought  distinctions  so  subtle 
and  perplexing,  to  separate  those,  who  love  the  same 
divine  character,  and  respect  the  same  divine  will. 

I)r.  Worcester,  however,  seems  disposed  to  widen 
the  breach  between  these  classes  of  believers.  He 
says,  the  Saviour  "  whom  you  acknowledge,  is  infin- 
itely inferiour  to  ours."  I  answer — we  believe  that 
GOD  saves  us  by  his  son  Jesus  Christ,  in  whom  he 
dwells,  and  through  whom  he  bestows  pardon  and 
eternal  life.  A  higher  Saviour  we  do  not  know,  and 
cannot  conceive.  But  Dr.  Worcester  does  not  stop 
here.     He  says,    ^*  The  God  whom  you  worship  is 


different  from  ours.''    To  this   I  answer,  as  otliers 
have   answered    before,   that    I  with    my  brethren 
worship    "the  God  of  Abraham,    of    Isaac,    and 
of    Jacob,    who    hath    glorified    his    son    Jesus," 
whom    Peter    preached,     Acts  iii.      We     worship 
"  the  God  and  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,'' 
to  whom  Paul   "  bowed  the  knee."     We  worship 
that  God,  whom  Jesus  in  his  last  moments  worship- 
ped, when  he  said,  "  Father,  into  thy  hands  I  com- 
mend my  spirit."     We  worship  that  God,  to  whom 
our  Lord  directed  us,  when  he  put    into    our  lips 
these    affecting  words,  "  Our  Father,    who   art    in 
Heaven."      We   worship   that  God,  of   whom  our 
master  spoke  in  these  memorable  words,  "the  hour 
coraeth,  and  now  is,  when  the  true  worshippers  shall 
worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth."      Dr. 
Worcester  speaks  of  a  different  God ;  but  we  can 
renounce  ours  for  no  other.     This  worship  we  are 
persuaded,    is  a  spring   of    purity,   joy  and  hope, 
and  we  trust  that  it  will    prove  to  us  a  source  of 
unfailing  consolation  amidst  the  trials,    reproaches 
and  rude  assaults  of  the  world.     But  I  must  stop. 
The  points  of  dispute  between  Unitarians  and  Tri- 
nitarians cannot  be  treated  with  any  fairness  within 
the  narrow  compass  of  a  pamphlet,  and  I  wish  not 
to  discuss  them  in  connexion  with  the  present  con- 
troversy, which  primarily  relates  to  the   moral  cha- 
racter of  the  great  body  of  liberal  christians. 

Dr.  Worcester  has  laboured  to  shew,  that  charity, 
instead  of  forbidding,  encourages  and  requires  Trini- 
tarians to  exclude  Unitarians  from  christian  fellow- 


ship,  because  charity  commands  us  to  promote  truth^ 
and  truth  is  promoted  by  this  system  of  exclusion. 
But  let  mc  ask,  why  is  truth  to  be  promoted  ?  Not 
for  its  own  sake,  but  for  its  influence  on  the  heart,  its 
influence  in  forming  a  christian  temper.  In  what 
then  does  this  temper  consist  ?  very  much  in  candour, 
forbearance  and  kind  affection.  It  follows,  that  any 
method  of  promoting  truth  which  is  unfriendly  to 
these  virtues  is  unchristian  ;  it  sacrifices  the  end 
to  the  means  of  religion.  Now  let  me  ask,  whether 
the  practice  of  rejecting  as  ungodly  men  those,  who 
differ  from  us  on  subtle,  perplexing,  and  almost  (if 
not  altogether)  unintelligible  doctrines,  be  not  obvi- 
ously and  directly  opposed  to  the  exercise  and  dif- 
fusion of  candour,  forbearance,  kind  affection  and 
peace.  Has  it  not  actually  convulsed  the  church  for 
ages  with  discord  and  war  ?  The  right  of  denoun- 
cing those  who  differ  on  such  doctrines,  if  granted  to 
one  christian,  must  be  granted  to  all ;  and  do  we 
need  the  spirit  of  prophecy  to  foretell  the  consequen- 
ces, if  the  ignorant,  passionate  and  enthusiastick, 
who  form  the  majority  of  every  community,  shall 
undertake  to  carry  this  right  into  practice  ?  The  idea, 
that  a  religion  which  is  designed  for  weak  and  falli- 
ble mortals  of  all  classes  and  capacities,  and  which 
is  designed  to  promote  unity,  peace,  candour,  and 
love,  should  yet  make  it  our  duty  to  reject  as  wholly 
destitute  of  goodness,  every  man,  however  uniform 
in  conduct,  who  cannot  see  as  we  do  on  points  where 
we  ourselves  see  little  or  nothing,  appears  to  me  the 
ajrossest   contradiction    and  absurdity.      If  this  be 


29 

Christianity,  we  may  say  any  thing  of  our  religion 
more  truly,  than  that  it  is  a  religion  of  peace.  A 
more  effectual  instrument  of  discord  was  never  de- 
vised. Charity  then  does  not  command  the  Trinita- 
rian to  exclude  his  Unitarian  brother.  Charity 
commands  us  to  use  mildness  and  persuasion  ;  to  open 
our  eyes  to  the  marks  of  virtue  in  those  from  whom 
we  differ ;  to  beware  of  ascribing  errour  to  a  corrupt 
heart,  unless  the  proof  be  strilting  ;  to  think  modestly 
of  ourselves,  and  to  drive  from  our  minds  the  conceit 
of  infallibility,  that  most  dangerous  errour  which  ever 
crept  into  the  church  of  Christ. 

I  have  now  finished  my  examination  of  the  princi- 
pal parts  of  Dr.  Worcester's  letter.  There  is  one 
general  remark  to  be  applied  to  the  whole.  It  does 
not  appear,  no,  not  in  a  single  line,  that  Dr.  Wor- 
cester ever  brought  home  to  himself  the  case  of  his 
injured  brethren,  ever  imagined  himself  in  their  situ- 
ation, and  inquired  how,  under  such  circumstances, 
he  would  himself  have  felt  and  acted.  Suppose  for 
example,  that  in  the  Christian  Disciple  a  review  had 
appeared,  solemnly  charging  on  that  class  of  minis- 
ters to  which  Dr.  Worcester  belongs,  sentiments 
which  they  generally  disapprove,  and  charging  them 
with  propagating  these  sentiments  by  artifice  and 
base  hypocrisy.  Would  no  sensibility  have  been 
excited  ?  Would  not  Dr.  Worcester  have  regarded 
the  author  of  this  Review  with  strong  indignation  ? 
Suppose  then  that  Dr.  Worcester,  impelled  not 
merely  by  a  regard  to  his  own  usefulness,  but  by 
friendship,  by  christian  affection,   by  a  regard    to 


3Q 

what  lie  believed  tbe  interests  of  the  church,  had 
written  such  a  letter  as  mine  to  Mr.  Thacher ;  and 
suppose  that  I,  after  reading  this  letter,  had  come 
before  the  publick,  and  without  one  expression  of 
sympathy  towards  Dr.  Worcester  and  his  brethren, 
had  attempted  to  uphold  the  Reviewer,  and  had  even 
declared,  that  the  large  body  of  christians  condemned 
by  that  writer  were  virtually  enemies  to  Christ,  with- 
out piety  and  without  hope.  What  would  Dr.  Wor- 
cester have  felt?  Might  he  not,  in  an  unguarded 
moment,  in  the  warmth  of  virtuous  indignation,  have 
called  me  a  defamer  ?  Would  he  not  have  said, 
that  I  was  aiming  a  blow  at  what  was  dearer  to  him 
than  life,  at  his  christian  character,  and  his  usefulness 
as  a  christian  minister  ?  Now  I  ask,  would  this 
conduct  have  been  a  crime  in  me,  and  is  it  a  virtue 
in  Dr.  Worcester  ?  Let  that  gentleman  bring  the 
case  home  to  himself,  and  he  may  view  his  letter 
with  less  complacency  than  he  now  does.  He  cer- 
tainly will  not  wonder  at  the  feeling  which  I  have 
expressed,  or  think  me  instigated  by  the  worst  of 
passions  in  the  remarks  which  I  now  offer  to  the 
publick. 

I  now  bid  farewell  to  this  controversy,  as  I  hope, 
for  ever.  This  I  do,  not  because  I  hope  to  escape 
reproach  by  silence,  for  I  know  that  the  full  measure 
of  reproach  is  prepared  for  me ;  not  because  I  shrink 
in  any  degree  from  the  cause  which  I  have  laboured 
to  defend  ;  but  because  I  fear,  that  a  controversy  of 
this  nature  between  christian  ministers  will  produce 
impressions  unfavourable  to  the  cause  of  piety;  be- 


31 

cause  I  believe,  that  it  tends  to  awaken  unfriendly 
feelings  in  the  community,  and  that  it  ouglit  there- 
fore to  cease  as  soon  as  the  interests  of  truth  will 
admit ;  because  I  fear,  from  observations  on  my  own 
heart,  that  it  is  not  favourable  to  the  best  affections 
in  those  who  are  immediately  engaged  in  it ;  be- 
cause I  am  persuaded,  that  it  Avill  never  end,  if  I 
resolve  to  answer  every  new  pamphlet  and  every 
fresh  charge  ;  because  a  continuance  of  it  will  be 
inconsistent  with  the  regular  duties  of  my  profession, 
and  with  more  useful  pursuits  ;  and  lastly,  because 
the  most  important  topicks  in  the  controversy  cannot 
be  thoroughly  and  fairly  discussed  in  the  form  of 
short  publications  abounding  in  personalities. — I  am 
willing  to  relinquish  the  privilege  of  saying  the  last 
word,  and  shall  of  course  be  condemned  by  those,  who 
consider  the  last  word  as  a  sign  of  victory.  With 
respect  to  the  direction,  which  the  publick  mind  will 
take  on  this  subject,  it  is  not  easy  for  a  man  of  retired 
habits  and  of  very  limited  connexions  to  determine. 
To  God  I  cheerfully  leave  the  event.  Believing  ia 
his  providence,  assured  that  the  gospel  is  his  care, 
and  looking  forward  to  his  promised  kingdom,  where 
the  animosities,  reproaches,  divisions,  and  poor 
contentions  of  this  world  will  never  enter,  I  desire 
and  hope  to  maintain  in  every  condition  an  equal 
mind,  and  to  attain  some  portion  of  that  peace  which, 
as  men  cannot  give,  so  they  cannot  take  away. 


N  O  T  E. 


In  the  preceding  remarks  I  have  wished  to  observe  some<" 
-thing  like  method,  and  to  hold  the  attention  of  the  reader  to  the 
great  points  of  the  controversy.  For  this  reason,  and  I  hope  for 
a  still  better  reason,  I  have  passed  over  several  of  Dr.  Worces- 
ter's courteous  sarcasms,  minute  criticisms,  and  appeals  to  po- 
pular feeling.  But  there  are  some  particulars,  not  undeserving 
attention,  which  were  excluded  by  the  order  which  I  proposed^, 
and  which  1  have  therefore  reserved  for  a  note. 

I  did  not  notice  Dr.  Worcester's  criticisms  on  my  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Review,  because  I  have  not  met  a  single  individual, 
who  has  expressed  one  doubt  as  to  the  import  and  design  of 
that  publication.  But  there  is  one  of  Dr.  Worcester's  criticisms 
which  ought  not  to  be  overlooked.  I  refer  to  the  attempt 
which  he  has  made  to  defend  the  Reviewer  from  the  charge  o£ 
a  very  criminal  mutilation  of  Mr.  Wells'  letter.  If  the  reader 
will  turn  to  my  letter  to  Mr.  Thacher,  page  12,  he  will  see  the 
mutilation  stated  at  length.  Dr.  Worcester  alleges,  that  the 
passage  was  varied  by  the  Reviewer,  merely  that  it  might  be 
inserted  conveniently  in  a  list  of  encomiums,  passed  by  Mr. 
Wells  on  liberal  gentlemen.  To  this  defence  I  reply,  first, 
that  the  mutilated  part  of  the  pass  ige,  as  it  stands  in  the  Review, 
is  not  an  encomium,  and  could  not  have  been  introduced  as 
possessing  that  character.  In  the  next  place,  it  is  very  singular, 
that  th6  pass  ige  could  not  have  been  properly  "  shafied,"  with- 
out excluding  those  words  which  most  forcibly  vindicate  the 
5 


34 

Boston  ministers  from  the  charge  of  concealment.  But  thirdly, 
it  is  still  more  remarkable,  that  the  passage  could  not  have 
been  properly  shaped  wilhoiit  printing  the  last  clause  in  italicks, 
a  clause  ^\hich,  when  thus  ]>rinted,  entirely  changes  the  mean- 
ing of  the  sentence.  How  tlsese  italicks  help  to  give  the  right 
shape  to  the  quotation,  is  not  obvious  to  a  common  reader,  nor 
has  Dr.  Worcester  thought  proper  to  inform  us. 

Dr.  Worcester  asseris  that  I  "  claim  all  charity"  for  myself 
and  my  friends,  and  "  decy  it  Jill"  to  our  opponents,  and  thus 
"  deny  that  they  have  true  religion."  God  forbid.  If  any  part 
of  my  letter  is  marked  by  this  exclusive  spirit,  I  ask  for- 
"•iveness  of  my  injured  fellow  christians.  I  did  think  that  I 
expressed  a  very  opposite  temper.     I  certainly  felt  it.  . 

Dr.  Worcester  says  that  1  have  given  a  very  distorted  view 
of  Calvinism.  I  should  rejoice  to  think  so.  It  is  a  painful 
thought,  that  such  dishonourable  views  of  our  merciful  Father 
m  heaven,  as  I  have  ascribed  to  that  system,  should  find  admis- 
sion into  a  single  human  mind.  I  represented  Calvinism,  how- 
ever, precisely  as  I  had  been  accustomed  to  understand  it ;  and, 
what  is  more,  since  reading  Dr.  Worcester's  letter,  I  have  con- 
sulted Miss  Adams'  "  View  of  Religions,"  to  correct  niy  errours 
on  the  sul)ject ;  but  still  I  am  met  by  the  same  heart-chilling 
doctrines;  Calvinism  still  wears  the  same  frowning  aspect;  still 
seems  to  me  a  dreadful  corrui)tion  of  true  Christianity.  That 
my  letter  contains  any  reflections  on  Calvinists,  as  Dr.  Worces- 
ter intimates,  cannot  be  true.  I  indeed  think  that,  as  a  class, 
they  have  defects  which  may  be  traced  to  their  sj'stem ;  and 
some  of  their  number  seem  to  love  none  of  the  principles  of 
Geneva  so  well  as  those  which  lighted  the  flames  for  Servetus. 
But  as  a  body  1  have  always  regarded  them  with  respect,  and 
it  has  been  ray  happiness  to  witness  among  them  very  briglit 
examples  of  christian  virtue.  If  Dr.  Worcester  shall  ask,  how 
characters  so  excellent  can  have  grown  up  under  so  corrupt  a 
system,  I  will  answer  him,  when  he  can  explain  how  a  Fene- 
lon  and  a  Pascal  were  formed  in  the  most  corrupt  church  in 
Christendom. 


5» 


Dr.  Worcester  says   that  I   have  unjusdy  represented  Dr 
Watts  as  a  Unitarian.     I  hope  that  Dr.  Worcester  does  not 
mean  to  avail  himself  of  an  ambiguous  A^ord.     Does  he  mean 
to  deny  that  Dr.  Watts  was  an  Antitritiitarkm,  that  he  rejected 
the  doctrine  of  three  distinct  persons  in  God?    Dr.  Watts  be- 
lieved, that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not  a  divine   person  distinct 
from  the  Father,  but  the  active  power  of  God,  to  which  per- 
sonal properties  Vf^ve  figuratively  ascribed  in  Scripture.  That  at 
least  I  have  always   regarded  as  his  opinion  ;  and  if  so,  one  of 
the  three  persons  has  certainly  disappeared  from   his  system. 
Dr.  Walts,  indeed,  believed  that  .lesus  was  properly   a   divine 
person,  and  he  often  speaks  of  him  as  God-man.      But   he   be- 
lieved that  this  divine  person  had  a  beginning,  and  was  formed 
by  the  union  of  the  Father  with  the  human  soul  of  Jesus  ;  and 
still  more,    he  believed   that   Jesus   was  divine,  because  the 
Father  and  not  a  second  divine  person  dwelt   in   him ;  in  other 
words,  Jesus   Christ,  according  to  this  system,  is  to  be  acknow- 
ledged as  the  supreme  God,  because  he  is  the  F«//jrr  himself 
united  with  a  human  soul ;    all  his  divinity  is  derived  from  the 
indwelling  Father.    Have  we  here  then  a  second  divine  person, 
dminct  from  the  Father,  yet  equal  with  him  in  eternity  and  every 
other  glory  ?     This  view  of  Dr.  Watts'  system  is  confirmed  by 
his  particular  friend    Dr.  Doddridge  who  has  given  substan- 
tially the  same  account  in   his  lectures ;  and   by  Dr.  Samuel 
Palmer,  the  disci  p}e  and  admirer  of  Dr.  Watts.   I  have  not  one 
doubt,  that  Dr.  Watts  was  a  Unitarian,  in  the  sense  of  believino- 
hat  God  IS  one  person,  in  opposition  to  the  Trinitarian  doctrine 
of  three  persons,  a  doctrine  which  he  calls  a  «  stranc-e  and  per- 
plexing notion."     Dr.  Worcester  says,  that  my  assertions  re- 
specting  Dr.  Watts  are  bolder  than  Mr.  Belsham  dared  to  make 
Mr.   Belsham's  assertions,  which  Dr.  Worcester  pronounces 
more  cautious  than  mine,  related  to  a  very  different  point  from 
that  which  I  maintained.     Mr.  Belsham  was  anxious  to  prove 
not  that  Dr.  Watts  was  a  Unitarian  in  the  broad  sense  of  that 
word,  but  a  believer  in  the  simple  humanity  of  Jesns  Christ 
Did  not  Dr.  Worcester  know  this  fact  ?   and*  w^s  he  ingenuous 
in  ascribing  to  me  greater  boldness  than  to  Mr.  Belsham,  whea 
our  objects  were  entirely  dilTerenf  ? 


With  respRct  to  Dr.  Barnard,  I  have  satisfactory  proof  that  h« 
believed  God  to  he  one  person,  and  was  accordingly  a  Unitarian. 
From  his  language  respecting  the  "  essential  divinity  of  Jesus 
Christ,"  I  infer  that  he  accorded  in  some  degree  with  Dr.  Watts 
or  Sabellius.  He  did  not  believe  the  Son  to  be  a  divine  person, 
distinct  from  the  Father,  and  possessing  equal  divinity.  His 
views  on  these  sulyects,  like  those  of  many  good  men,  were  not 
very  precise.  Had  he  been  obliged  to  select  a  system,  it  would 
have  been  Dr.  Samuel  Clarke's.  The  same  remarks  may  be 
applied  to  President  Willard. 

Dr.  Worcester  s|)eaks  of  my  "  denunciation"  of  the  Pano- 
plist.  I  did  not  refer,  as  the  connexion  will  shew,  to  the 
^oifrflZ  discussions  and  statements  of  that  work,  of  which  I  know 
very  little;  but  to  its  representations  of  the  views  and  character 
of  liberal  christians.  On  this  point  I  have  the  same  conviction 
as  before,  that  the  Panoplist  is  entitled  to  no  credit. 

Dr.  Worcester  has  quoted  for  my  benefit  the  following  text  of 
scripture,  "  There  shall  be  false  teachers  among  you,  who  priv- 
ily shall  bring  in  damnable  heresies,  even  denying  the  Lord 
who  bought  them."  Dr.  Worcester  says,  that  this  language 
may  "sound  harsh  and  unfashionable,"  and  he  "trusts"  that  I 
"  will  have  the  goodness  not  to  impute  to  him  the  fault."  Sar- 
castick  compliments  seem  to  me  not  to  belong  to  so  serious  a  sub- 
ject. Trifling  here  is  quite  out  of  place.  I  ask  Dr.  Worcester's 
attention  to  this  passage  as  rendered  according  to  Dr.  Camp- 
bell. "  There  shall  be  false  teachers  among  you,  who  shall 
privily  bring  in  ihslructivc  sects,  or  divisions,  denying  or  renoun- 
cing the  Lord  who  bought  them."  Believing  as  I  do,  that  the 
gospel  is  characterized  by  a  benevolent  and  pacifick  spirit, 
and  that  the  Lord  has  bought  us  for  this  very  end,  that  we 
should  serve  him  in  love,  I  cannot  conceive  of  a  surer  mark  of 
a  false  teacher  of  the  gospel,  than  the  introduction  of  destructive 
divisions  into  the  church,  and  I  am  persuaded  that  one  method 
of  denying  or  renouncing  the  Lord  is,  to  divide  his  followers, 
and  to  oi)|)ose  the  spirit  of  charity  and  peace.  I  shall  not  in- 
sult Dr.  Worcester  by  asking  him  to  "have  the  goodness  not 
to  impute  to  me  the  fault  of  this  uapleasant  and  unfashionable*' 


sr 

«omment,  but  I  recommend  it  to  his  serious  attention.  I  mean 
not,  however,  to  intimate  that  any  teachers  of  the  present  day 
are  to  be  placed  on  a  level  with  the  false  teachers  condemned 
in  this  passage.  These,  as  appears  from  the  whole  chapter,* 
were  monsters  of  iniquity,  covetous,  lewd,  adulterers,  seditious, 
slanderous,  given  up  to  the  basfst  lusls.  They  excited  divi- 
sions for  mercenary  purposes,  and  built  up  a  sect  by  encourag- 
ing lasciviousness  and  the  grossest  sensuality.  Thank  God, 
this  race  has  passed  away,  and  I  could  not  without  great  guilt 
confound  with  them  any  class  of  ministers  with  whom  I  am 
acquainted.  I  believe  that  the  fomenters  of  division  among 
us  are  generally  actuated  by  an  injudicious  zeal,  by  passions 
which  they  mistake  for  piety,  and  by  prejudices  which  are 
reconcilable  with  a  regard  to  God  and  duty,  not  by  the  motives 
which  governed  the  profligate  wretches  referred  to  in  the  text. 

It  is  one  of  my  great  offences  with  Dr.  Worcester  that  I  "  put 
in  my  earnest  plea"  for  the  christian  character  of  those,  who  be- 
lieve in  the  "  simple  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ."  It  is  some  con- 
solation to  me,  that  I  have  the  excellent  Dr.  Doddridge  as  a  part- 
ner in  this  guilt.  The  name  of  Dr.  Lardner  is  I  presume  familiar 
to  most  of  my  readers.     No  man  in  modern  times  has  rendered 
greater  service  to  the  cause  of  Christianity.     Dr.  Lardner  was 
a  decided  believer  in  the  simple  humanity  of  Jesus.     Having 
published  a  volume  of  Practical  Sermons,  he  sent  them  to  Dr. 
Doddridge,  who  acknowledged  the  favour  in  a  letter,  from 
which  the  following  extracts  are  made.     "  I  esteem  the  valua- 
"  ble  present  you  were  so  good  as  to  send  me,  as  a  memorial  of 
"  the  learned,  pious  and  generous  author."     "  Be  assured  that 
"  though  I  am  not  able  to  express  it  as  I  would,  I  do  actually 
"  feel  a  deep  and  constant  sense  of  your  goodness  to  me,  and, 
"  which  is  much  more,  of  your  continual  readiness  to  serve  the 
■*'■  publick  with  those  distinguished  abilities  which  God  has  been 
"  pleased  to  give  you,  and  which  have  rendered  your  writings 
"  so  great  a  blessing  to  the  christian  world.     And  I  heartily 
"  pray  that  they  may  be  yet  more  abundantly  so,  for  promoting 

*  2  Pet,  u. 


38 

"  the  cause  of  piety  and  virtue,  of  christian  principles,  and  it 
"  christian  temper.  In  the  iuterpretalion  of  particular  texts 
"  and  the  manner  of  stating  particular  doctrines,  good  men  and 
"good  frienils  may  have  different  apprehensions;  but  you 
"  always  propose  your  sentiments  with  such  good  humour,  mo- 
'^  desty,  candour  and  frankness,  as  is  very  amiable  and  exem- 
"  plary;  and  the  grand  desire  of  spreading  righteousness,  bene- 
"  volence,  prudence,  the  fear  of  God,  and  a  heavenly  temper 
"  and  conversation,  so  plainly  ap|)ear3,  particularly  in  this 
"  volume  of  sermons,  that  were  1  a  much  stricter  Calvinist  than 
"  I  am,  I  should  love  and  honour  the  author,  though  I  did  not 
"  personally  know  him."  Such  was  the  language  of  Doddridge, 
a  "  disciple  whom  Jesus  loved,"  to  the  excellent  Lardner. 
Blessed  be  God,  who  in  every  age  raises  up  witnesses  to  the 
true  spirit  of  Christianity,  and  who  opposes  such  examples  as 
that  of  Doddridge  to  tlie  narrow,  exclusive  and  uncharitable 
spirit  of  the  world. 

I  will  conclude  this  note  with  earnestly  desiring  christians 
to  obtain,  if  possible,  sonie  accurate  ideas  of  the  most  important 
point  in  the  present  controversy.  Let  them  learn  the  distinc- 
tion between  Trinitarianism  and  Unitarianism.  Many  use 
these  words  without  meaning,  and  are  very  zealous  about 
sounds.  Some  suppose  that  Trinitarianism  consists  in  believ- 
ing in  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  we  ail 
believe  in  these ;  we  all  believe  that  the  Fatlicr  sent  the  Son, 
and  gives  to  those  that  ask,  the  Holi/  Spirit.  We  are  all  Trini- 
tarians, if  this  belief  is  Trinitarianism.  But  it  is  not.  The 
Trinitarians  believe  that  the  One  God  is  three  distinct  persons, 
called  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost;  and  he  believes  hat 
each  of  these  persons  is  equal  to  the  other  two  in  every  perfec- 
tion, that  each  is  the  only  true  God,  and  yet  that  the  three  are 
only  one  God.  This  is  Trinitarianism.  The  Unitarian  be- 
lieves that  there  is  but  one  person  possessing  supreme  divinity, 
even  the  Father.  This  is  the  great  distinction  ;  let  it  be  kept 
steadily  in  view. — Some  christians  have  still  more  vague  ideas 
on  this  s'lbject.  They  suppose  that  Trinitarians  think  highly 
of  Jesus  Christ ;.  whilst  Unitarians  form  low  ideas  of  him,  hardly 


39 

ranking  him  above  common  men,  and  therefore  they  choose  to 
be  Trinitarians.  This  is  a  great  errour.  Some  Unitarians  be- 
lieve that  the  Father  is  so  intimately  united  vith  Jesus  Christ 
that  it  is  proper,  on  account  of  this  union,  lo  ascribe  divine 
honour  and  titles  to  Jesus  Christ.  Some  Unitarians  deny  that 
Jesus  is  a  creature,  and  affirm  that  he  is  pro^ierly  the  Son  of 
God,  possessing  a  divine  nature  derived  from  the  Fftther.  Some 
Unitarians,  who  assert  that  Jesus  is  a  creature,  maintain  that 
he  is  literally  the  first-born  of  the  creation,  the  first  i)roduction 
of  God,  the  instrumental  cause  by  whom  God  created  all  other 
beings,  and  the  most  exalted  being  in  the  universe,  with  the 
single  exception  of  the  infinite  Father.  I  am  persuaded,  that 
under  these  classes  of  high  Unitarians  many  christians  ought 
to  be  ranked  who  call  themselves  orthodox  and  Trinitarians. 
In  fact,  as  the  word  Trinity  is  sometimes  used,  we  all  believe 
it.  It  is  time  that  this  word  was  better  defined.  Christians 
ought  not  to  be  separated  by  a  sound.  A  doctrine  which  we 
are  called  to  believe,  as  we  value  our  souls  and  our  standing  in 
the  church,  ought  to  be  stated  with  a  precision  which  can- 
not be  misunderstood.  By  the  Trinity,  I  have  all  along 
understood  the  doctrine,  that  God  is  three  persons.  If  it  do  not 
mean  this,  it  means  nothing,  and  those  christiaDs  who  take 
shelter  under  this  word,  without  adopting  this  sentiment,  are* 
acting,  I  fear,  a  dishonest  and  ungenerous  part.  They  distin- 
guish themselves  by  a  name  from  christians  with  whom  they 
substantially  agree,  and  whom  they  are  bound  to  honour  and 
love  as  brethren.  To  those  persons,  who  wish  to  understand 
better  the  nature  of  the  Trinitarian  controversy,  I  would  recom- 
mend Dr.  Price's  five  "  Sermons  on  the  Christian  Doctrine," 
and  Rev.  Noah  Worcester's  three  Tracts  called  the  Trinita- 
rian Review.  This  subject  has  of  late  been  ably  discussed  in 
a  "  Reply  to  Wardlaw's  Discourses,"  by  Rev.  James  Yates  of 
Glasgow,  Scotland.  "  Prove  all  things ;  hold  fast  that  which  is 
good." 


/ 


^ 


vft^"^ 


^4^ 


^^&^ 


'^\ 


§:. 


'  -it-"j 


•1  I  i''^it'^>« 


1 


J? 


